UNRF: A Standing Army for the United Nations
For many reasons, the UN has been a positive, stabilizing force in the world for the past half century. It will become even more important in the future as collective security and international cooperation become the norm while unilateralism is looked down upon. The UN has been very successful in dealing with lots different kinds of projects, especially in the developing world. The biggest criticism leveled at the UN, though, is its inefficiency and inability to act when a real crisis is emerging in the international community. The UN needs a rapid response force that can be deployed to deal with humanitarian crises, natural disasters, and acts of genocide.
Rwanda is typically cited as the ultimate UN failure to act. In 1994, the world and the UN did next to nothing while Hutus in Rwanda killed almost a million Tutsis in just a few months. The UN had 2,500 peacekeepers for the entire country, but most were withdrawn after 10 Belgian soldiers were killed.
One of the primary problems with the UN’s ability to intervene in situations like this is that it has no standing military force with which to do it. Every time the UN Security Council decides on a peacekeeping mission, the force must be cobbled together from the grudging member states that volunteer personnel. A United Nations Response Force (UNRF) is a much needed major step to help improve world security and to help control future humanitarian crises that develop.
This standing force should be made up of soldiers drawn from the UN Security Council permanent countries, as well as other members selected by the Council. Only the UN Security Council would be able to authorize its deployment, but as soon as they authorized it, the force would be ready to go. There would be no need to create the force out of thin air.
The UNRF would be about 25,000 people overall, and should be a completely self-contained combined arms force with supplies and transportation ready. The UNRF personnel would be on a rotation schedule similar to the one set up by the NRF (the NATO Response Force); the international units would assemble and train together for 6-12 months, and then they would serve 6-12 months on active reserve, ready to be deployed anywhere in the world.
Although the mere existance of the UNRF would not immediately solve all of the issues involved with moving the global community to action when a humanitarian crisis emerges, it would make the process much more feasible and effecient. One of the biggest obstacles to creating a permanant military force like this would probably be public opinion in certain states, especially the U.S. Even public opinion here could shift, though; many Americans are beginning to see that America cannot be the world’s police officer, and unilateral intervention is not always possible or advisable. At the same time, there is a growing sense of responsibility to the people of the world for us to help when we can to mitigate humanitarian issues. The UNRF would certainly be a step in the right direction for all parties concerned.
If they reinstitute the draft, perhaps they’ll have exclusive UNRF options. Otherwise I’ll have to opt for C.O. option. I don’t like to think of myself as a coward; but I can’t even entertain the thought of exacting violence on other people.
Maybe I have too much faith in the UN, but I believe that if they were to wage war it would be as close to justifiable as we’ll get.
On the justifiable issue: I think a lot of people think that military intervention to stop genocide, for example, would be justified from a moral perspective. The breakdown comes because it isn’t always strategically justifiable or justifiable from a realpolitik standpoint. Now if the UN had a standing force for just that purpose, that would take away those barriers…
I think it’s a noble idea but faces the following hurdles:
1) The only time anybody takes a proposal for a UNRF seriously is *after* an act of genocide/ethnic cleansing. Kofi Annan lobbied for a UNRF while he was secretary general and it really didn’t go anywhere.
2) The US vote for a UNRF would have to come from a Republican administration; GOPers don’t have to deal with the “loss of sovereignty” issues that Democrats usually have to deal with.
3) A UNRF would still have to deal with the threat of great power veto whenever the UNSC was considering deployment. If the UNSC was considering sending troops to quell a Rwanda-like genocide, the US would probably block the resolution if we supported the government.
But it’s got my vote.
Do you think that Russia and China would approve an amendment to the U.N. Charter to allow interventionist forces? I’m afraid they would interpret it as another move to improve Western leverage.
Say you do get it approved by outstanding political maneuvering and just the right amount of compromise. This necessary provision would still worry me:
“Only the UN Security Council would be able to authorize its deployment…”
Wouldn’t this be a major issue? If any of the regions are of any particular importance, from a power position, I could see China and Russia becoming even more of an obstacle than the already are, when it comes to international intervention (like in Kosovo). I’m sure areas like Africa would be relatively easy to deal with, but what if more serious issues develops in highly “political” regions like Kashmir, Georgia, or Chechnya?
This are just concerns of mine. They may just be political barriers to overcome; however, I am skeptical that it’s really possible to overcome these. In the end, I want something like this implemented as much as you do, David.
Right. ME and I were typing at the same time. #3 seems to be my biggest concern. Although 1 & 2 are definitely things to consider.
“I could see China and Russia becoming even more of an obstacle than the already are.”
You are right to observe that the veto system could prevent deploying the UNRF in all the circumstances that we bleeding hearts might like; however, there is no way that China and Russia could become “even more of an obstacle,” because the worst they could do would be to block the deployment, which mitigates the potential benefit of the force, but it is not a net negative. It gives them no additional power or leverage.
The US could also be an obstacle to deploying troops in certain circumstances, but I doubt that any US administration would be able to justify vetoing action in something that really looks like a genocide (Rwanda, Kosovo, etc.) no matter how much we support the government.
Of course this wouldn’t solve all the problems that the global community faces with responding to humanitarian issues, but it does address one of the most significant obstacles – the ad hoc “peacekeeping” system of volunteer nations does not work.
Perhaps the most critical part of the UNRF is getting it initially approved by the Great Powers? Will China and Russia ever go for that? Russia already feels like its becoming entrapped by the expansion of NATO and the new missile defense shield initiative. China is seemingly impervious to whatever the West says. Assuming that theUNRF initiative gets off the ground, I seriously doubt that China or Russia will be on board with a global military that is run primarily by Western nations; it’s a bit naive to think otherwise. When’s the last time that all the Great Powers have been able to come to a consensus on a politically tied, global issue?
there is no way that China and Russia could become “even more of an obstacle,”
Well, if they block the deployment of the ready force, that’s an obstacle. The “even more” was a reference to the status quo. China and Russia aren’t on the same global page as the rest of the world. If that’s the case, then how effective is a UNRF force really going to be if the only situations they’re deployed are those that involve politically insignificant regions?
One way around this is to use NATO more often. NATO doesn’t require the authorization of China or Russia. Take Kosovo for example. The UNRF, if it existed then, would have never even been mobilized, because Russia contested Western intervention in Kosovo. NATO filled the humanitarian void, albeit with much opposition.
So, perhaps there isn’t any “net negative” to this plan, if you can ever get enough global capital and Great Power support. However, that isn’t how things are always ran. If the Western nations see the UNRF as relatively ineffective, even if it may sometimes be deployed, I don’t see any big push for something like this any time soon. Furthermore, most Western nations may think this is superfluous, since a semi-global military force still exits in NATO.
As much as I would like something like this, with the political differences between Russia, China and the West, I highly doubt it could ever get off the ground. Moreover, if by some diplomatic benevolence a UNRF were created, political workability and lack of consensus would almost definitely impede progress.
I absolutely agree with you that such a force is incredibly unlikely in the current international political climate.
I do not, however, think that it is impossible that it could ever happen. The UN has authorized scores of peacekeeping deployments, so there are circumstances where all the great powers agree on intervening militarily for various reasons.
What about this:
NATO creates a NATORFHUM: NATO Ready Force for Humanitarian Aid (or something like that).
If could even just be a reinstatement of the old NATO Ready Force with new political impetus and motivation. This will give you all of the perceived benefits minus the enormous stagnation potential cost. If there is a genocide going on in an area of high geo-political value, it will be easier for Western nations to come to a consensus, minus Russia and China.
Additionally, there is actual political capital for something like this; the Ukraine and Georgia were just turned down from NATO. That may sound disenchanting, but it’s a sign that NATO is still seeking expansion and improvement. I haven’t heard anything about an UNRF.
I hate to exclude such powerful and influential states; however, the difference in ideology and political structure makes cooperation far too difficult.
NATO would be able to come to consensus more easily, yes; however, it would not have the legitimacy to act outside the boundaries of Europe. If it did act outside of that sphere, it would increase tensions between NATO and the other major powers outside of Europe.
Actually, there has been an ongoing discussion about creating some sort of standing military force for the UN ever since the 90s. Here are a few of the more recent articles:
A New York Times editorial, “A Force Behind the UN,” by Brian Urquhart.
A Toronto Star article, “United Nations ‘Army’ Proposed,” by Olivia Ward.
This study was also interesting. The Chicago Council on Global Affairs did a world opinion survey involving many different nations that showed very high support for something like this. The survey is worth reading. It looks like there is overwhelming support for a standing force among all the permanent UN members surveyed (including China and Russia).
If it did act outside of that sphere, it would increase tensions between NATO and the other major powers outside of Europe.
Better than no action at all, I suppose.
The first two links weren’t anything special (op-eds), but that last one is very interesting. I wondering how credible that study is? Like, who are they surveying? I doubt it’s upper echelon politicians (but I didn’t look too hard). But if it’s legitimate, I wonder where all the debate is at? Certainly not in New York.
Do you think the strong support from countries like China for a more legitimate UN is a power politics game? As of now, China has minimal international influence. If decisions by the U.N. were more enforceable or more binding, then China would have more power.
Perhaps I could clarify: is there any real political capital coming from influential politicians/organizations for a UNRF?
Bill Clinton was in favor of it just a few years ago. So were Ambassadors George McGovern and Richard Holbrooke.
There was also an interesting bill proposed, the UN Rapid Deployment Act of 2001. I’m not sure if it ever came to a vote, but I’ll let you know if I find that.
Granted, during the current neoconservative administration, there has not been much of a push for anything resembling cooperation with the UN. But I hardly think that is indicative of how America will interact with the UN in years to come. I think there is a large backlash brewing against the Bush, cowboy-style foreign policy because of its utter failure across the world.
I think there is a large backlash brewing against the Bush, cowboy-style foreign policy because of its utter failure across the world.
Me too. What I’m afraid of is an American withdrawal from world events, which tends to happen after stints of interventionist policy.
I think any force like this that would ever actually exist (and I’m very pessimistic about those chances, though I am sympathetic to the idea) would not be made up of P5 nations. Russia, China, and the US seem unlikely to go for it, and France is quite squeamish about anything that involves risk (jerks).
That is certainly a possibility of the kind of backlash that could happen. Whichever one happens will be a result of what the national leadership helps direct the resentment toward. I think that a diplomatic internationalist president could help the US rejoin the international community as a law-abiding, participating citizen now that we learned our lesson about unilateralism.